The triumph of unreason: the Same-sex Marriage vote.

In the wake of two years of intense controversy, Paul Martin's Liberal government finally rammed through the House of Commons its Same-sex "Marriage" bill, C-38, on June 28, 2005. But opponents have pledged the war is not over. Here, Catholic Insight recaps and updates some of the key developments in the battle over this pernicious legislation.

The political arena

After the Liberal government invoked debate closure, the House of Commons--due mainly to support from most Liberals, the Bloc Quebecois and the New Democratic Party--passed third and final reading on Bill C-38 by a vote of 158-133. The legislation acquired Senate approval on July 19 and royal assent the next day, July 20, at which point Canada joined Holland, Belgium and Spain as the only countries in the world to enact a legalized, radical redefinition of the institution of marriage.

Thirty-two MPs from the Liberal party broke ranks with Martin and joined the majority of the Canadian public, who reacted with massive opposition to the marriage redefinition proposal. Five Bloc, one NDP and two independent MPs also voted against the bill together with all Conservative party MPs, save for three.

Notable among those opposed: Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex), who fled the Liberal party and moved to sit as an independent; Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Superior North), who resigned his cabinet post as Minister of State for economic development in northern Ontario; and NDPer Bev Desjarlais (Churchill), who was stripped of her critic's role and banished to the back benches by her leader, Jack Layton, for refusing to toe the party line.

The final vote dashed hopes that the legislation could be defeated in a roundabout way through the downfall of the Liberal government via non-confidence votes on its budget. (See Paul Tuns, p. 14 in this issue)

Paul Martin tried to bring more Liberal MPs onside by meeting with those opposed to Bill C-38 and promising certain protections for religious and public, officials who had qualms with homosexual "marriage" ceremonies. But even his Justice Minister, Irwin Cotler, had to admit that real religious protections could not be guaranteed because the administration of the Marriage Act is a provincial, not federal, jurisdiction. Judging by the eventual defection of Pat O'Brien, and the number of Liberal MPs who ultimately voted against C-38, Martin's appeal was fruitless.

The bill survived a questionable committee process, which saw it pushed through with incredible speed. The committee sat for 16 hours a week, instead of the usual four. The Canada Family Action Coalition complained that the committee hearings were "a farce," with pro-marriage intervenors receiving less than 24 hours' notice of their appearance and a report being tabled within a day of the conclusion of the hearings. The government also postponed the Commons' summer recess so the bill could receive third reading. Martin crowed afterwards that Canadians wanted to put the homosexual "marriage" debate behind them. He claimed that anyone trying to "exploit" the issue would be seen as taking away others' rights and added that he was willing to fight an election on the issue. NDP leader Jack Layton held a "victory party" to celebrate the homosexual marriage bill, as well as his party's success in having a budget amendment enacted. Conservative party justice critic Vic Toews, however, said the marriage issue is not closed and observed Canadians from coast to coast were "unhappy with the way the Liberal government has rammed this matter through."

General Reaction

Campaign Life Coalition president Jim Hughes called the passage of Bill C-38 "a black day for Canada" and vowed that every MP who voted for the odious legislation would be targeted for defeat in the next federal election.

The Catholic Civil Rights League predicted that the passage of C-38 would result in numerous court cases and complaints to Human Rights tribunals, as well as challenges to the charitable tax status of institutions upholding the traditional definition of marriage. President Phil Horgan said that, although C-38 included amendments to strengthen freedoms of religion and expression, such clauses are meaningless since most applications regarding marriage fall under provincial jurisdiction.

REAL Women of Canada expressed hope that the Liberal government will meet defeat within a year because of its fervent advocacy of homosexual "marriage." It said: "corruption; imposing on Canadians Third World politics by way of arrogant, top-down government; open bribery to obtain votes; and the manipulation of the parliamentary process will bring down this despotic prime minister and his cronies."

The Calgary-based Canada Family Action Coalition said it was "disgusted by the government's manipulative tactics in ramming through the redefinition of marriage." CFAC president Dr. Charles McVety of Toronto attacked those MPs--especially formerly pro-marriage Liberal cabinet ministers--who reneged on commitments to their constituents to vote against Bill C-38; executive director Brian Rushfeldt vowed MPs who voted to redefine marriage "will pay a heavy penalty in the next election."

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada said it "laments" the passage of C-38. President Bruce Clemenger also complained that rather than having taken their concerns seriously, the government made evangelical Christians "feel that our beliefs about marriage are un-Canadian and contrary to the Charter (of Rights)." He added that, by reasons of faith, conscience, practice and teaching, the EFC cannot accept a new definition of marriage and will continue to promote the institution as an exclusive union between one man and one woman.

Dr. Grant Hill, co-ordinator of the defend Marriage Coalition, reminded pro-marriage supporters that the passage of Bill C-38 was a defeat, but the war has by no means been lost. "No society has ever done what the majority in the Commons voted to do ... and survived," said Hill. "We are making our children and grandchildren 'guinea pigs' in a radical social experiment."

Stephen Harper's promise

Conservative party leader Stephen Harper pledged, following third reading of Bill C-38, that the marriage issue was not at rest. "Our intention is to have a free vote," he said. "I think it will be an issue to come to Canadians in the next election and there will be a chance to revisit this in a future Parliament. It is in our program and we'll obviously ask the next Parliament their views on this issue." He labelled the new law "illegitimate."

Harper ignored Toronto's annual "gay pride" parade on June 26 in favour of attending a gathering of 35,000 Muslims in Mississauga, just west of Toronto. Most Canadians believe that the traditional definition of marriage should be recognized. Hindus, Christians and Muslims shall not be ignored or shamed into silence, he told them.

Catholic bishops react

On passage of Bill C-38 in the House of Commons, the president of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB), Archbishop Brendan O'Brien, issued a press release stating the House of Commons took an "unfortunate step" and put at risk the future of marriage as a fundamental social institution. He added that, "Canadians are witnessing a dangerous deterioration of their communal values" and lamented the refusal, by "certain political parties," to recognize freedom of conscience and religion in the vote. He concluded by calling on the Senate to exercise a "second and sober" look at the proposed legislation.

On behalf of the Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops, general secretary Tom Reilly said in a statement that the new definition of marriage "runs counter to every instinct and to the basic thinking and imagination of ordinary people. But we, ordinary people, are allowing ourselves to be manipulated." He added: "We were asleep. It is time to awaken."

The statement of Aloysius Cardinal Ambrozic, Archbishop of Toronto, repeated most of the CCCB's letter, while adding that, "The Archdiocese of Toronto will continue to offer, and to insist upon, the Sacraments in accord with the Catholic belief of two millennia. Marriage will be celebrated only as the union of a man and a woman open to the bringing forth of children. Our pastoral work, our Catholic schools and our Catholic social services are committed to upholding Catholic teaching on marriage." Just how committed the Catholic schools will prove to be, remains to be seen.

Other Ontario bishops, including the Bishop of Peterborough, Nicola De Angelis, and Bishop Ronald Fabbro of London, issued what appeared to be a common form letter that said Bill C-38 "is a radical and unjustifiable break from ages-old tradition and robs the matrimonial union of a man and woman of its uniqueness ... Be assured that the Church will not compromise on the meaning of this unique institution, which has been the foundation of civilization from its beginning."

Retired Bishop Pearce Lacey of Toronto told LifeSite News that he was "deeply saddened" by developments surrounding Bill C-38. But he added: "I pity Paul Martin ... Paul Martin has got a great judgement ahead of him, a judgement that I wouldn't want to be in his shoes. Imagine the leader of a country, who has the responsibility of really giving the kinds of strong direction and leadership to his people, and then to flunk--to literally fail--is a very, very serious indictment on him."

The Archbishop of Vancouver, Raymond Roussin, remarked in a July 4 pastoral letter that despite the passage of Bill C-38, "a law cannot change what is inherent to what something is ... The government is not capable of changing marriage." He recalled the faithfulness of two saints who were martyred for their witness to the truth about marriage, John the Baptist and Thomas More, and acknowledged the "valiant efforts" of many lay Catholics, who had been involved in the battle to defend the traditional definition of marriage.

Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary also responded in a Calgary Sun column of July 31, stating that the vote would change nothing to the reality of (normal) marriage despite the government's action, except for threats of coercion and the possible blocking of freedom of speech and religion. Canadians, he wrote, "need to rethink our attitude towards children, the prevailing contraceptive mentality, the practice of abortion, our divorce culture and day-care parenting."

In the Maritimes Bishop Faber MacDonald of Saint John, N.B., published a pastoral letter on June 29 calling for continued opposition to same-sex "marriage" by upholding the true meaning of marriage through word, deed, and personal witness (New Freeman, July 15).

More hearings

During special legislative committee hearings prior to the passage of Bill C-38, Archbishop Marcel Gervais of Ottawa, representing the CCCB with lawyer Helene Aube, said secular laws must respect "the order inscribed in nature. Once laws contradict this natural order, they become unjust." To his astonishment his arguments were rejected out of hand by committee member, admitted homosexual and Bloc Quebecois MP Real Menard as something from "the time of the Flintstones." Menard also charged that heterosexuals were the ones damaging the institution of marriage the most.

Cardinal Marc Ouellet

Following C-38's passage in the House of Commons, the Primate of Canada, Cardinal Marc Ouellet, Archbishop of Quebec, spoke for the Canadian bishops when he told the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs that changing the nature of marriage involves "largely unforeseeable, but assuredly negative, consequences for Canadian society." Bill C-38, he said, was based on "a false understanding of the fundamental equality between persons, on an erroneous understanding of human dignity, on a spurious understanding of minority rights, on a faulty interpretation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and on a truncated understanding of freedom of religion."

The Cardinal sounded warnings on threats to freedom of conscience and religion posed by the bill, suggesting that attempts to intimidate persons who do not share the state's vision of marriage would multiply following the adoption of C-38. "Those who oppose (homosexual marriage) for religious motives, or motives of conscience, will be considered as bigots, anti-gay and homophobes, and then risk prosecution."

The Globe & Mail predictably downplayed Cardinal Ouellet's worries over freedom of religion and conscience. It editorialized that the Cardinal's concerns were "unfounded" and that it was "inconceivable" a Canadian attorney-general would consent to the prosecution, under Canadian hate laws, of those who expressed godly or biblical views on homosexuality. Then taking up the Cardinal's worries about being "accused of homophobia or of hatred, bigotry ...", the Globe confirmed that this would indeed be the case "if they paint homosexuals as sinners." Now love the sinner but hate the sin is precisely the position the Church upholds and that, according to the Globe, makes the Church liable to accusations of reducing homosexuals to "lesser human beings." ("Cardinal Ouellet's unfounded concerns," July 15, 2005). In other words, according to the Globe the Catholic Church is prohibited from morally disapproving of homosexual acts because that very disapproval is an act of hatred.

New law

For the most part, media reacted with outward pleasure to the news that homosexual "marriage" was now enshrined in law. The Globe, which has run no fewer than 28 editorials supporting SSM since December 9, 2004, wrote on July 21, following Senate approval of C-38, that approval of homosexual "marriage" made for an "enlightened stand." Homosexuals "are family now. Canada is one of the first places in the world to say that. Canadians should feel proud," the newspaper added.

Even the National Post, which had been somewhat favourable to those defending the longstanding definition of marriage, said in a June 29 editorial that it was "good" that "a relatively minor issue that ... dominated political discourse at the expense of more pressing matters" came to an end. "It's time to move on," it urged.

The editorial was depressingly similar to the tune sung by Paul Martin, who had told the Post homosexual marriage was an issue Canadians "want to put behind them." Of course, Martin failed to allude to the chicanery and fraud that had brought about Bill C-38's passing, or to the familiar Liberal tactic of cutting off debate by invoking closure.

Post columnist Andrew Coyne characterized the legalization of homosexual marriage as "the right thing to do."

Tony Gosgnach is a freelance media person who also is assistant editor of the monthly newspaper The Interim.